The Dichotomy Of The Liberals, Illustrated By Ssm And Gun Control

[Questing Beast]

It is obvious to me that Liberals are not entirely mentally balanced. By "Liberals" I am referring to a group-think that advocates for complete freedom for all to be their most desired selves, yet demands that Gov't compel all those who disagree with their vision of "Utopia" to give up everything that is ruining the Liberal vision of how that world is supposed to be.

In the issue of SSM it is obvious that Liberals are winning, just as they won against the "moral majority's" denial of interracial marriage during the so-called civil rights movement. The "moral majority" were wrong, and the SCOTUS rightly struck down all "Jim Crow" holdout enclaves and upheld the right of individuals to marry whomsoever they chose to marry, etc.

In a similar way SSM demands that those who love each other, as consenting adults, ought to have the same individual rights as "traditional" couples do. And most traditional-thinking people are agreeing with that principle, and are adjusting their pov accordingly. However, their adjusted pov, to agree that all individuals ought to have the same liberties, does not include being compelled to agreement.

And this is where the great divide is best illustrated by the recent Congressional rejection of the POTUS's "gun control" bill. The Liberals are all incensed at the NRA, et al. any gun rights advocates over this one. It is seen by them as evidence that their "Utopia" is a mirage, a night vision, a pipe dream, a sad bit of make-believe. The Liberals will stoop as far as they feel necessary to swing public sentiment in their direction, even twisting/distorting facts to say the opposite of the truth. (e.g. "more children die from gunshot than from cancer", which is only possibly true if you count every gang-banger from the age of 18 down) Liberals want the Law to step on gun rights, hard. They don't care that 99+% of all law-abiding gun owners are no threat whatsoever to society and never were. Liberals want fewer guns, ideally NO GUNS at all in private citizen hands. Liberals want the Gov't to control all the remaining guns, then criminals won't be able to use guns to shoot children up, and we can all never worry again that psychos might have the power to unleash a hail of bullets, ergo private citizens won't need to go armed in public or at home ever again. That imaginary world suits the Liberal vision of "Utopia". But it is myopic: if we the people have given the Gov't that kind of power, we have given up our individual right to self defense in order to gain a little more security. And as Franklin said, anytime the people are willing to give up a little freedom to get more security, the people deserve neither freedom nor security.

So the fundamental difference between Conservative and Liberal is the level of Gov't intervention. Conservatives, though slow to change their minds, do in fact swing to the side of "liberty and justice for all" in the end, e.g. the victories of the civil rights movement required upholding of the Constitution by the States on the issue of marriage and other civil rights vouchsafed in the Constitution, and did not require a raft of additional "laws" to force Conservative compliance with the existing law. Liberals want the Law/Gov't to intervene and control everyone who disagrees with them, even (or especially) when those who disagree exercise their individual rights to property that Liberals have earmarked as "evil", even though the greater evil is the loss of individual and combined self defense in a world that has never trusted and should "never trust the government that distrusts your gun"....

Edited April 18, 2013 by Questing Beast